Materiales para la amplificación del ADN de CPV-2 mediante el ensayo LAMP

There are three important elements in these definitions: the time children spend on the street, the street as a source of livelihood, and the lack of protection and care from adults (Le Roux & Smith, 1998).

Several terms in these definitions have led to confusion on what is meant by home, family, protection, and a “responsible” adult (Panter-Brick, 2002:150). Adult-child relationships may be construed differently from culture to culture, and may be premised upon a radically different understanding of “normal” childhood (Panter-

Brick, 2002:150). In some poverty ridden communities, children are the prime caretakers of incapacitated adults and the prime income earners in the household, such that relationships of care, protection, and provision flow from the child to the adult rather than from the adult to the child (Boyden & Mann, 2000 cited in Panter- Brick, 2002:150).

Child rearing practices also vary amongst cultures. Cobos (1979) in Aptekar (1994:329) described ‘passive abandonment’ as a method of child-rearing that allowed children to roam the neighbourhood, finding company outside of the immediate view of their mothers. This is similar to child-rearing among the poor in the Caribbean, in Mexico and in Brazil, which are the areas of Latin America where the largest numbers of street children are found (Aptekar, 1994:329).

Being homeless is also variously rendered across cultures, as desamparado (defenceless, unprotected) in Latin America, furosha (floating) in Japan, and khate (rag-picker) in Nepal. These terms evoke disaffiliation, transience, and marginal economic work, rather than notions of lack of home or abode (Desjarlais, 1996). Ennew (2003) emphasised the importance of understanding the lives and roles of youths in any culture. For example, she asserts that the notion of The African Child is as much of an obstacle in this process as the global construct of The Child. Youths in different cultures experience different childhoods and so must be understood according to their history and culture (Ennew, 2003).

Moreover, street children are constructed differently in different countries. For example, although, the term ‘homeless’ and ‘street youths’ have been used interchangeably, the term ‘homeless’ is often used in North America and Western Europe, while the term ‘street youths’ is most frequently used in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia. This indicates that by adopting different socially constructed discourses around street youths, interventions which support and uphold the status quo of social inequalities are maintained (De Moura, 2002:353).

According to Cosgrove (1990:185), many professionals feel that definitions oscillate between the portrayal of street children as either victim or deviant.

Le Roux and Smith (1998a:915) explored the concept of deviance as a label placed on street children because of a lack of understanding and insight into their lifestyles.

They point out that society has negative perceptions of street youths as ‘sly, manipulative, deceitful troublemakers’, and that while these children may use these as tactics for survival, the response is one where they are perceived by the public as negative (Le Roux & Smith, 1998a:915). They are often thought to be deviants and criminals who should be locked away as they are a danger to society in general, “a lost generation, hooligans, ‘good-for-nothings’, thieves, violent youngsters, nuisances and parasites” (Barrette, 1995:4). While it may be true that a child is more likely to enter into criminal activities the longer he or she is on the street, the negative stereotype that all street children are violent, homeless criminals and a burden to society is still maintained (Le Roux et al., 1998a:915).

Similar to the views of Le Roux et al. (1998a) and Barrette (1995) cited above, Panter-Brick (2002:149), asserted that the term “street child” is imbued with pejorative or pitying connotations (Panter-Brick, 2002:149). Ironically, the term “street children” itself was widely adopted by international agencies in an attempt to avoid negative connotations for children who had been known as street urchins, vagrants, gamines, rag-pickers, glue sniffers, street Arabs, or vagrants (Williams, 1993 in Panter-Brick, 2002:150). It has been argued that the label street child, now so emotionally charged, does little to serve the interests of the children in question.

For Invernizzi (2001:79), the term, ‘street child’, has a stigmatising effect, since the child is, as it were, allocated to the street and to delinquent behaviour. The term neither gives consideration to the experience or testimony of the children in question nor to other facets of their identity, which do not necessarily have any relevance to the street. Thus it becomes a cause of discrimination of the children and triggers or strengthens negative social reactions. This social reaction leads to stereotypes related to gender, ethnicity, and age; for instance, that all street girls are prostitutes (Lucchini, 1994:6) and street boys are junkies, and that younger children should be pitied but teenagers, especially dark-skinned ones, should be feared.

Taçon (1991) cited in Williams (1993:831), for example, formulated a profile of a ‘typical Namibian street child’ who would most likely:

• come from and have a family which is also poor, and to which he goes home regularly if not nightly;

• have a mother who heads his family, and who is very possibly unemployed; • have four to seven siblings, making a total family group of six to nine

members, who live together with from four to six other persons in the same house (ten to fifteen people in all);

• work on the street to earn food and/or money to support his family;

• experience alcohol and/or substance abuse within the family and home, perhaps even affecting himself;

• attend school in or have dropped out of Standards one or two; • be physically and/or psychologically abused at home;

• still have self-esteem and the desire to be esteemed and respected by others; and

• be full of spirit, eager to learn and anxious to improve his lot in life.

Whilst some of Taçon’s (1991) assertions are true, they cannot be generalised to all street children. Thus, this point of view is considered too simplistic, and there is a multiplicity of viewpoints and opinions currently emerging as to how to define a street child. In this way, formulating an accurate definition of what exactly constitutes a street child has become problematic and has often fostered much hot debate amongst the professionals.

In addressing the definition problem further, Aptekar (1995) also emphasised the individual aspects of street children. He believes that, while street children may be part of some homogenous group, the uniqueness of each child should be acknowledged as varying reasons exist for them being on the street. The appellation “street children” it is a generic term that obscures the heterogeneity in children’s actual circumstances (Panter-Brick, 2002:150). In the words of Raffaelli and Larson (1999:1), “the term street youth, or street children ... conceals enormous variation in the experiences of youngsters who share the common condition of being ‘out of place’ in street environments, spending their lives largely outside the spheres typically considered appropriate for children, such as home, school, and recreational

settings.” The individuals concerned are all minors under eighteen years of age, but from a broad age spectrum including teenage and near-teen youth as well as children as young as five, and sometimes, also the infants of homeless parents (Panter-Brick, 2002:148).

Additionally, Panter-Brick (2002:149), noted that the term does not correspond to the ways many children relate their own experiences or to the reality of their movements on and off the street. In his study of Brazilian children, for example, Hecht (1998) sought to explain why some youth describe themselves as street children when their siblings, who lead very similar lives, do not. Hecht (1998) argued that in the context of Northeast Brazil, the difference of identity hinges on how they see themselves in relation to their family and society at large. In his words, some children “work in the street, dance in the street, beg in the street, sleep in the street, but the street is the venue for their actions not the essence of their character” (Hecht, 1998:103).

Most recent studies agree that portrayals of street children cannot be reduced to a one or two dimensional focus on the street environment, defining the children’s existence solely with reference to a physical and/or social dimension, that is, permanence in the street and contacts with responsible adults (Panter-Brick, 2002:149). This approach serves to highlight some striking differences in the life circumstances and negotiated identities of street children.

Furthermore, Panter-Brick (2002:149), noted that the use of the term ‘street child’ deflects attention from the broader population of children affected by poverty and social exclusion (Panter-Brick, 2002:149).

A significant argument in some of the literature is that a focus on street children, easily represented as the symbol of child poverty and social exclusion, concentrates attention toward only the most visible tip of a huge iceberg. A focus on street children, however well-intentioned, deflects attention from the broader population of low income children and youth in poverty. Focusing attention on street children can thus lead agencies to overlook or ignore the much larger problem of urban and rural poverty.

However, Cosgrove (1990) believed that a definition based on a classification system is possible despite limitations of existing knowledge. To this extent, he

asserts that “a street child is any individual under the age of majority whose behaviour is predominantly at variance with ‘community norms’ for behaviour and whose primary support for his/her developmental needs is not a family or family substitute” (Cosgrove, 1990:192).

On a different note, Payne (1997) has argued that contemporary social work is a creation by social workers, clients and agency contexts. Therefore, an awareness of the role of language in social work is also significant as it can have far-reaching implications that influence decision-making processes (Payne, 1997 cited by Tudoric-Ghemo, 2005). This ‘reality’ created by the use of language can be seen in some of the discourses around street youths, for example, the use of phrases such as ‘child protection’ or ‘youths in particularly difficult circumstances’, ‘working youths’ prove for very strong rhetoric. This indicates the marked effect that language can have on social work policy and practice.

While the above definitions and categories may seem plausible and perhaps practical, Aptekar (2003) later pointed out that a variety of situations that contribute to the movement of youths must also be taken into account. This fluidity in their movement is contingent on the various situations they are faced with. For example, movement of youths fluctuates between living at home, on the street or in welfare organisations. This movement also depends on changes in weather, police or public focus, or changes in the family environment (economic change or the removal of a stepparent). In this way, he believes that it would be more accurate to conceive of youths as falling on a continuum of environmental differences rather than on emphasising their personal characteristics (Aptekar, 2003).

Taçon (1991) cited in Williams (1993:832-833) has also attempted to provide a working definition based on a continuum of minimal street use to total dependency on the streets. He characterised these overlapping levels within a distinct hierarchy of beneficial street use. These levels are based on an ‘assumed adulthood’, the child’s general status, school exclusion and ‘degenerative estrangement’. He believes that these levels serve the purpose of identifying where along the continuum these youths lie. Table 2.2 below highlights the levels.

Table 2.2: Taçon's hierarchical classifications of street use

Source: Williams (1993:833)

Finally, acknowledging the problems in finding suitable definitions for street youths, Ennew (2003) concludes that in this sense, there is no one ideal. It is however, important that in the scramble to find the politically correct definition, these youth’s needs not be overlooked or somehow become lost in the process. Figure 2.1 below shows the interconnectedness of issue affecting a child on the streets and differing labels attached.

UNICEF Of (or in) the streets On the streets 1980s

Peter Taçon 3.70% 7.50% 22.20% 66.60%

(UNICEF Totally abandoned Of the streets On the streets In families 1985: 45)

LONDON Homeless Home Owning (Greenwood

1869: 6)

ENGLAND Professional Regular Beggars Dwelling without a Parents low and Parents too poor to Ragged thieves home … dependent ignorant with no send them to pay children on themselves interest in schools but who (Carpenter without even a education desire education for 1850: 74) nominal protector their children INDIA Vagrants from criminal Home abandoning Regular vagrants Early vagrants (Striastava or immoral homes vagrants

1963: 12)

NAIROBI Totally abandoned Living in a gang with no ties to any With parents or relatives who (Dallape community could be able to look after them 1987: 35)

MEXICO Completely abandoned Semi-abandoned Vagrant children Working children (UNICEF Live on the street Live in the street Wander the streets Wander as they work 1987a.: 19) No relationships with Sporadic relations with Maintain relations with Live sporadically or

families families families continuously with Use drugs Use drugs Do not use drugs families Do not work Do not work Do not work Do not use drugs

Work is principal activity Determinates ………Beneficial Street Use ………

Of ………Assumed Adulthood………. Intervention ………..School Exclusion………...

Figure 2.1: Intersecting circles of street children Source: Chowdhury (n.d:24)

No term has yet been coined to capture both the peculiar nature of street life and its interconnection with other aspects of vulnerability. The study will keep adopting the term street children, aware of its partially unsatisfactory character. Figure 2.1 above shows the complex nature of streetism.

In summary, there are a variety of definitions that have been given to street children. These are generally broad-based references according to behavioural characteristics or living experiences. The traditional definitions such as urban, slum, dump, bush youths or those children that are ‘on’ or ‘of’ the street, throwaway and run-away have been discussed. For purposes of this study, the heterogeneous nature of the definitions described above, is used loosely and interchangeably. In each instance, references to street children are essentially determined by the context, while still preserving the essence and import of the discussion at hand. In terms of the debates and contradictions within the varying definitions, it can argued that wide definitions may at best still be an effective approach in sensitising audiences to the problems of street youths, even if it be at the expense of consistency and reliability.

The following section will examine the nature and extent of the phenomenon of street children.